Osama Saeed's blog

09 December 2007

Miliband denies visiting West Bank settler relatives

I was very surprised to read that Foreign Secretary David Miliband has family who live in one of the illegal West Bank settlements. According to the Jewish Chronicle, he was forced into denying he visited them on his recent visit to the region.

The obvious serious implication of this is that if he's to have a part to play in achieving a just peace there, it does represent somewhat of a conflict of interest if he has family living in what are arguably the biggest stumbling blocks to that very peace. It's very important that a full disclosure is made on this issue.

I've written on the Foreign Office website asking for more information.
How are these people related to him? And though he remains publicly
committed to a two-state solution, what boundaries does he envisage for
this? Will his family have to up sticks in a return to 1967 borders? Or
will their colonial outpost, wherever that is, form part of a larger Israel in his mind?

So far none of the mainstream press have picked up on this. No doubt
they would have if the Foreign Secretary had family that were
Palestinian refugees. Or maybe not, since no one likes mentioning them either.

Comments

So what New Labour has done
is basically employ someone to be their Foreign Minister, some of whose family are war criminals, as occupying land acquired by aggression is illegal, as in the case of the illegaly occupied Palestinian West Bank.

This is quite unbelievable!

British Muslim folk get hauled over the coals because someone has discovered some book or other lying on a dusty shelf - and public libraries are held to account for books they hold in stock.

However, a British Government Foreign Minister has family members who are war criminals, maybe even fanatical racist Jewish fundamentalists, and it isn't a corporate news story!

Committing war crimes is a much worse offence than committing terrorist acts!

Presumably Miliband will be seen as an 'honest broker' when it comes dealing with the current corrupt racist regime that rules Israel and illegaly occupied Palestine (WB & G) - in the same way the US Government prides itself in its role of making sure Israel is never held to account for its vast crimes against Palestinians. Indeed, the Israelis are subsidised and supported by the US Government in the commission of its ongoing war crimes atrocities.

Mind you the former Glorious Leader of New Labour and former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is guilty of the same crimes as Hitler, and is responsible for butchering and maiming millions across huge swathes of West Asia - but now Tony Blair (war criminal and Butcher of Baghdad, Beruit, Balata and Baghram) has been made a Peace Envoy to the very region he violently attacked and traumatised, and in his new role as Peace Envoy demands that Iran be bombed immediately!

I can only begin to imagine the synthetic furore of Rupert Murdoch's employees and the British Government's Ministry for Truth, the BBC, if they discovered a British Muslim politician had family connections to some extremist terrorist nutter in West Asia somewhere!

Mind you, the Bush family has buisness connection to the bin Laden family and saw to it they were the only ones allowed out of the US directly after 11-9. Not that I think the bin Laden's themselves are guilty of anything, just that George W. Bush is, by trying to cover up his embarrassing connections to Osama bin Liner, however tenious!

On the other hand, if he does have settler relatives AND turns out to support a reasonably good deal for the Palestinians, he could be a very useful negotiator indeed, since the Israelis would really be unable to accuse him of being unaware of the sacrifices involved.

Well, er, in theory at least. Admittedly New Labour probably don't have any great interest in solving the problem, if the line taken on the war in Lebanon is still current thinking.

I know this won't be a terribly popular thing to say on here, but I also don't buy the "all settlers are war criminals" line in the above comment. By that measure entire families who emigrated to any part of the former British empire (including all Americans and Australians) are war criminals, as are numerous other families moving in the wake of wars across the world, from Western Sahara to Russia to Iraq.

You said: "So what New Labour has done is basically employ someone to be their Foreign Minister, some of whose family are war criminals..."

May I also point out that other members of Miliband's family are responsible for funding Media Lens: "Media Lens gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Barry Amiel and Norman Melburn Trust, the Lipman Miliband Trust..."

If someone's family connections are up for scrutiny, have some objectivity, otherwise you just come over as a propagandist.

...but I also don't buy the "all settlers are war criminals"...
- You obviously haven't heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Transfering populations onto land acquired by aggression is a war crime.

As this is one of the most highly contentious issues on the planet, and has been for decades, how someone can claim that they aren't doing anything wrong by ethnically cleansing Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the West Bank is beyond me.

By that measure entire families who emigrated to any part of the former British empire (including all Americans and Australians)
- Show me where the ethnic cleansing is taking place, at the moment, and racist laws are being practiced in these places, at the moment, and I'll be more than happy to agree with you.

as are numerous other families moving in the wake of wars across the world, from Western Sahara to Russia to Iraq.
- And as refugees, under the Genava Conventions and the UN Decleration on Human Rights, they have the right to return to their own land.

Same as Palestinians have the perfectly legal right to return to their own land, but are being prevented from doing so by the racist genocidal ethnic cleansers of the Israeli government, whose war crimes you seem to support.

Is this another example of selectivity on your part?
- Er, yes George, it is another example of my selectivity.

I don't agree with people who break the law, for whatever reason (unless it's a lesser crime committed in order to prevent a greater crime). War crimes, of course, are the worse crimes it is possible to commit as they traumatise and affect whole populations.

I especially don't agree when the war criminals happen to be the British Government - who have been supporting the racist Israeli Government carry out their racist war crimes against their neighbours for decades.

Yes, I'm sure the Miliband family also run puppy orphanages, but it still doesn't justify his family or anybody elses, taking part in ethnic cleansing and war crimes.

How sick and corrupt is New Labour when Blair can be made a 'Peace Envoy' (and I'm sure Blair done some good in his time as PM, especially for rich billionaires) and someone can be made Foreign Secretary knowing he has racist ethnic cleansing war criminals in his family!

British Muslims get held to account because somebody has found a book in a Mosque somewhere - but the Foreign Secretary has war criminals relatives committing war crimes right now.

Yes objectivity George - is Miliband on a watch list, or under survellience by British security services, or is his house going to get turned over because he's related to some terrorist extremist somewhere?

No, Miliband gets to become Foreign Secretary.

If someone's family connections are up for scrutiny, have some objectivity, otherwise you just come over as a propagandist.
- That's me George, a propagandist.
When it comes to family connections, I would have prefered President George W. Bush not to have allowed members of the bin Laden family to leave the US before being questioned, directly after 11-9.

I hear some members of Hitler's family ran a kitten orphanage - that can only mean Hitler was a swell guy. After all, as you say George, there is good and bad in everything and everyone.

All through this dialogue, both here and on the other page, I have been simply trying to dissuade you from your simplistic model. I would think for example that David Milliband has an extensive file in all branches of the security services, but I would also suspect his Father has an even larger one.

Despite this he is still foreign secretary. That is what we do in Britain. Slow, incremental changes that allows a society to absorb the extremes into the establishment. That is why Sir Iqbal and Sir Salman have knighthoods, and why Sir Iqbal got his first.

What sort of file do you think the security services have on our host on this site? My guess would be quite an extensive one, but he is now a candidate for Glasgow Central, and I think quite likely to win, and so become part of the establishment where he can argue his case effectively.

You seem to be constantly looking for conflict Joe. Let it go and start working constructively. If there is a peaceful path, it is our duty to find it.

This desire to confront, to take a position and fight is the same self-destructive force that has undermined the left forever. Look at the Scottish Socialists who managed to make progress and immediately found the big-red-button that they just can't stop themselves from pushing.

Or Respect the SWP and Respect Renewal? Good idea, good start, and all of a sudden its the People's Front of Judea all over again. Or should that be the People's Front of Palestine?

Either way, its always the same.

It will be good to see our host in Westminster, and who knows if you develop a more concilliatory stance, perhaps one day you could become Lord Joe90 de la Mancha

In between times,
Keep Tilting.

PS As long as you want them to be, the giants will always be there. Just as long as you don't mind the rest of us using them to mill our grain.

I do think people should grill him, because of this, about his views on the borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

However, it'd be sensible to stay away from explicit discussion of his family. I can't imagine that any good would come of trying to get him to explicitly say "my family should be removed".

He probably believes that, but asking him to say it explicitly is akin to asking Hamas to, say, accept Israel's "right to exist". Obviously a lot of Hamas would be happy to come to an agreement with Israel and leave it at that indefinitely - didn't their "spiritual leader" (since, by the way, whacked by Israel) offer a hundred-year truce? That was obviously a way to make peace in a way that would leave Palestine with some dignity. But Hamas would never accept any "right" of Israel to exist, not in those terms.

When the U.S. asks for recognition of Israel's right to exist, when they insist as they do on that phrase, they are being disingenuous. They know nobody's going to say THAT, even though in practical terms Palestinians would accept an Israel on the '67 borders.

Er, anyway, the thrust of this comment is that I can't imagine that asking him, directly, about his family would do any good. He should be questioned in such a way that he can make clear that his family should not be where they are without specifically mentioning them.

Millions Joe? Same crimes as Hitler? A tad hyperbole, mayhap?
- Yes sunnivea its called 'umprovoked agrression' or haven't you heard of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.

- Blair helped Israel carry out an 'unprovoked aggression' against Lebanon in the summer 2006,
- Blair helped Israel maintain its racist ethnic cleansing and genocidal occupation of Palestine
- Blair carried out 'unprovoked aggression' against both Iraq and Afghanistan

Unless there is less people in these countries than I think there is, and they are located on the moon or somewhere - that is at least 3 counts of committing, or involved in committing, the same crime as Hitler, carried out against millions of People across a huge swathe of West Asia.

Unless you know different sunniva - so lets have your evidence Blair didn't carry out the same crime as Hitler, against millions of innocent defencless people in West Asia.

As for GeorgeYou seem to be constantly looking for conflict Joe
- If you look back on this comment thread George, you were the one who addressed me first, so you still remain a liar.

Despite this he is still foreign secretary.
- Exactly, appointed despite the fact he has war crimninals in his family, carrying out their crimes in a sensitive area of the world. How diplomatic of New Labour, as usual.

That is what we do in Britain. Slow, incremental changes ...
- More feel good narcissistic British flannel. Oh how noble we British are.
Incrimental changes such as lying point blank about Iraq WMD for instance, in order, to attack it.

Incrimental changes such as following our American orders perhaps.

Incremental changes such as Thatcherite asset stripping of profitable publicly-owned works, and robbing the British public blind.

Joe90: "Transfering populations onto land acquired by aggression is a war crime."

Yes, the general activity of arranging such transfers is a war crime, and should be treated as such. But transferring yourself personally onto land offered to you is not a war crime, and so David Miliband is not related to war criminals.

Joe90: "how someone can claim that they aren't doing anything wrong by ethnically cleansing Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the West Bank is beyond me."

I don't claim that nothing is wrong. There is a clear difference between David Miliband's relatives and the Israeli government.

Joe90: "Show me where the ethnic cleansing is taking place, at the moment"

Well, the Western Sahara is a classic example of importing a population (Moroccan Arabs) to ensure democracy would not favour the indigenous population. It continues. Many allege the Tibet/China situation is similar.

Joe90: "And as refugees, under the Genava Conventions"

No, I meant (in all these situations) people voluntarily moving to recently conquered land.

Joe90: "British Muslims get held to account because somebody has found a book in a Mosque somewhere - but the Foreign Secretary has war criminals relatives committing war crimes right now."

His relatives are not war criminals. Even if they were it would be wrong to have him punished for it, since if they did anything, it wasn't him that did it. Applying collective punishments on people because of their birth is always wrong, no matter who is involved.

I would just like to get the red herring of 'Israel's right to exist' out of the way.
No country has a right to exist, not even Israel. Dead inanimate objects, such as 'Israel' only have any rights insofar as they are the property of somebody, who have the right to do with it what they will.

Country's aren't moral agents in the same way humans are. We have rights. We have right to exist ie not be murdered. Countries, pens, computers, carpets have no rights to exist or otherwise, they just 'are'.

As for jungle,
I don't know if I can even be bothered with their deliberate time-wasting gibberish.

Millibands folks, it seems, are living on land acquired by aggression which is illegal under international law. Further, that land is being ethnically cleansed - so Millibands folks are guilty of illegal occupation and illegal ethic cleansing, along with the rest of the horror show that is apartheid Israel.

And the subtle distinction between the actions of the Israeli government and Jewish-Israeli citizens is also the same apologia employed by Germans guilty of Nazi crimes and White Afrikaaners guilty of crimes under South African aprtheid.
As its most recent member, welcome to one of the most disgusting clubs in the world jungle.

Well, the Western Sahara is a classic example of importing a population...
- Yes, and because crimes are taking place elsewhere at the moment doesn't mean that Israel's crimes are any less crimes. They are all illegal.

And anyway, I was refering specifically to the British Empire, Australia etc, where there are no Apartheid-Israel racist ethnic cleansing and racist laws favouring certain section of the population, at this moment in time.

You have ignored my point about old British Empire and the situation as it stands today in the likes of in Australia etc. You have simply went onto refer to Western Morocco and Tibet, without acknowledging that Australia doesn't practice state-sponsored racism today, unlike Israel.

No, I meant (in all these situations) people voluntarily moving to recently conquered land.
- I have no real idea what your point is here.
I can only say there is a difference between the racist apartheid ethnic cleansing policies of Israel, and these other present-day situations you mention, which don't seem particularly racist to me.

They seem to be just the usual practice of states attempting to acquire land by aggression, which is illegal, and crushing anybody who gets in their way, which is also illegal.

The only reason you can move 'voluntarily' to conquered territory, in this case, is because its been conquered, which is illegal these days. What your point is here I've no real idea.

And your last paragraph sort of sums up your gibberish quite nicely.
Miliband has recently been chosen as the British Government's Foreign Secretary, but it now emerges he has links wiith war criminals living on illegaly occupied land which has been ethnically cleansed, in one of the most sensitive areas of the world.

Very diplomatic!

Applying collective punishments on people because of their birth is always wrong...
- working yourself into a regular wee lather there jungle.

Don't worry, Miliband has been made British Foreign Secretary, hardly a punishment, despite the fact he might have a conflict of interest or loyalties when carrying out his duties, and those seeming conflicts might not be in Britian's best interests.

Before you criticize someone else's linguistics may I suggest you remove the linguistic sophisms from your own keyboard first.

You said: " Dead inanimate objects, such as 'Israel' "

1 Only something which has once been alive can be dead. Most inanimate objects can not be regarded as dead as they were never alive in the first place.

2 Israel is not an inanimate object, dead or otherwise it is an abstract noun.

May I suggest you read: "Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory" to give you a basic understanding of the difference. It is quite and old book, published in 1955 but still valid. Unlike the author's later work.

Joe 90 writes: Tony Blair, is guilty of the same crimes as Hitler, and is responsible for butchering and maiming millions across huge swathes of West Asia - but now Tony Blair...Millions Joe? Same crimes as Hitler? A tad hyperbole, mayhap?

- This is what sunniva, the brainwashed Stalinist-type fanatic, originally wrote - notice how different this statement is from sunniva's latest distortion of reality -

Joe90, I am still waiting for my evidence (that's facts, figures, reputable sources) that Blair is responsible for the deaths of millions. MILLIONS. Your word Joe, not mine.

- I didn't mention 'millions of deaths' - So sunniva is a liar.
What I said was Blair is responsible for 'butchering and maiming millions'.

Notice sunniva isn't waiting for evidence of Blair's guilt in committing the same crimes as Hitler of 'unprovoked aggression', presumably sunniva has selective memory, as brainwashed pavlovian fanatics like their type often do.

So sunniva wants me to satisfy their personal whims by running after their wants and needs - the wants and needs of a liar and a fanatic!

I tell you what sunniva -
- as my statements are hyperbole then it should be the easiest task in the world for you to give me your facts, figures and sources first. In fact, I'm a surprised sunniva, you didn't include any evidence or proof with your dramatic assertions of my hyperbole in the first place.

Nice to see there are plenty of others to take the ranting, raving, Mr 90 on. Well done, yes I like the comment on "dead inanimate objects comment".

Grammar and sentence structure is not Mr 90's concern, he is more interested in finding reasons why he should be able to call everyone "war criminals". He won't give you facts, but links that purport to be facts.

I have three theories about this 90 character, a) definitely an SWP adherent; b)possibly someone's alter ego; c) and spends a lot of time and energy sucking up. d) if you are not on his side, you are a racist/islamaphobe. e) seems unaware that his views as expressed here are often racist/anti-semitic etc, f) incapable of any form of reasonable discussion.

Mr 90 is a stunning example of the following: What's the difference between philosophy and "religion"? Philosophy provides questions that often have no answers, "religion" provides answers that cannot be questioned.